ORDER :

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.

These instant Civil Revision Petitions are arisen out of dismissal of I.A.Nos.827, 828 and 829 of 2024 in O.S.No.88 of 2010 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole dated 14.07.2025.

2. I.A.No.827 of 2024 is filed under Order XVI Rule 6 of C.P.C praying to summon the District Registrar, Ongole to produce the Register containing signatures of petitioners’ father. I.A.No.828 of 2024 is filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act with a prayer to send Ex.A1/Agreement of Sale along with Register of signatures to be produced by the Sub-Registrar, Ongole for examination to the Expert at Government finger Print Bureau, Mangalagiri. I.A.No.829 of 2024 is filed under Order XVI Rule 6 of C.P.C praying to summon Narendar Singh, Director, Document Division, Truth Labs, Hyderabad to produce the entire file No.TL/QD/182/HYD 2010 relating to its report/opinion dated 17.07.2010 in respect of Agreement of Sale dated 03.03.2005 and to give evidence.

3. Since the parties are one and the same in all present CRPs and reliefs sought under Order XVI Rule 6 of CPC and under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act in one suit, therefore for better appreciation of evidence on record and due to the facts and issues are one and the same in the revision petitions, this Court is inclined to pass this common order:

4. Petitioners herein are defendants and respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. For the convenience of this Court the parties referred as they are in revision petitions.

5. Brief facts of the case are that respondent herein filed suit O.S.No.88 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole, filed against the petitioners herein seeking specific performance of an alleged Agreement of Sale dated 03.03.2005 (Ex.A1), purportedly executed by Late Puvvada Koteswara Rao, the father o the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 herein.

6. The petitioners herein filed their detailed counter denying the claim of the respondent and consistently pleaded that the Agreement of Sale (Ex.A1) is a forged and fabricated document and that their late father never executed the same. In order to substantiate their defence, the petitioners procured a certified copy of Ex.A-1 and forwarded it to Truth Labs, a well-known forensic analysis agency, for expert opinion. The report from Truth Labs dated 17.07.2010 clearly opined that the signature on Ex.A1 does not match the genuine signature of Late Koteswara Rao.

7. The respondent, however, opposed reliance on the said expert report on the ground that it was based on a certified photocopy and not through the Court process. Accordingly, the petitioners decided to follow due process and obtain the opinion of a government-recognized expert by forwarding the original Ex.A1 along with contemporaneous genuine signatures of Late Koteswara Rao to the Government finger Print Bureau, Mangalagiri.

8. On the other hand respondent/plaintiff filed his counter in the suit and stated that the petitioners’ requests needs no consideration in view of the fact that the petitioners would have taken steps at earliest point of time in this regard if really they extended to have the said relief from the Hon’ble Court. Evidence of respondent/plaintiff is already completed and DW1 was also examined. When the matter is posted for petitioners/defendants further evidence, they came with this petition. Not only this petition alone, but they filed multiple petitions at this stage without any legal right. Moreover the petitioners intend to summon the District Registrar to produce the register pertains to the sale deeds of 2005 as detailed in the petition affidavit. This effort of the petitioners is ambiguous and much time taking. The suit is of year 2010. To maintain these petitions at this stage, there are no special reasons for the petitioners. Petitioners cannot file multiple petitions at any stage of the suit of 2010 at their whims and fancies. So these petitions are intended to dr